Keyes v. Smith
| Decision Date | 09 January 1906 |
| Citation | 183 N.Y. 376,76 N.E. 473 |
| Parties | KEYES v. SMITH et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Action by George J. Keyes against C. Walter Smith and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (94 App. Div. 614,88 N. Y. Supp. 1105), affirming a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
William De Graff, for appellant.
William W. Webb, for respondents.
The action was brought to reform a written instrument, which had been executed by the defendants and one Henry C. Munn, upon the ground of the ‘mutual mistake of the parties thereto,’ and because of the ‘false and fraudulent statement’ made by the defendant Smith to said Munn. The instrument assigned absolutely to Smith certain policies of insurance, and the complaint alleged that the assignment was really intended as collateral security for the repayment of certain advances. The record of the trial shows that upon the conclusion of the plaintiff's case the defendant moved for the dismissal of the complaint upon the ground that there was no evidence of mutual mistake or of fraud. No ruling was made at the time; but subsequently findings were formulated by the court, in which, among other things, the fact was found that the instrument in question was not ‘made or induced by any fraud, or false or fraudulent statement, and there was no mutual mistake of the parties,’ and the conclusion of law followed that ‘the complaint must be dismissed.’ The plaintiff filed exceptions to some of the findings and to the conclusion of law, and appealed from the judgment to the Appellate Division in the Fourth Department, where it was affirmed unanimously. The unanimous affirmance of the judgment recovered by the defendants precludes any further review by this court of the evidence, as we have had occasion repeatedly to announce. An affirmance by the Appellate Division, when ordered with the concurrence of all the justices sitting, is sufficiently explicit within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure (section 191, subd. 4), which embodies a provision of the Constitution of the state. Article 6, § 9; Commercial Bank v. Sherwood, 162 N. Y. 310, 56 N. E. 834;People ex rel. Manh. Ry. Co. v. Barker, 152 N. Y. 417, 46 N. E. 875. The findings of fact must be taken by this court to be true, and they are beyond our power to question, whether as being without evidence to support them or as against the evidence.
It is argued that there was no judgment on the merits, and that the disposition of the case at the Trial Term amounted only to a nonsuit. I do not think so. The action was brought on the equity side of the court, and upon the plaintiff's evidence, given through witnesses and through documents, the decision was made, and expressed in findings, that there had been an absolute sale of the policies in question to the defendant Smith; that the instrument of assignment was not the result of any mutual mistake, or of fraud; and that, as a legal conclusion, the defendant Smith was entitled to hold the moneys received upon the policies and to a dismissal of the complaint. No ruling had been made upon the defendants' motion for the dismissal of the complaint when the plaintiff rested his case at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oakes Mfg. Co. v. City of New York
...court and unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division. The situation seems to be clearly covered by the decision in Keyes v. Smith, 183 N. Y. 376, 76 N. E. 473. That case was one in equity, and, at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant offered no evidence, but moved for a ......
- Gendre v. Scottish Union & Nat'l Ins. Co.